Using the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) Model for Continuous Quality Improvement of an Established Simulated Patient Program

Objective: To describe the use of a continuous quality improvement process for strengthening our simulated patient (SP) program and the initial steps that have been implemented.  Innovation: A workgroup that included five clinical faculty with significant experience working with SPs and a strong interest in improving the SP program was developed.  The Plan-Do-Study-Act model was used as it allowed for incremental quality improvement changes, in order to ensure a high-quality SP program designed to optimize student learning.  Data were gathered from students, SPs, and faculty. Opportunities for improvement were prioritized based on anticipated benefits and available resources.  Changes related to planning, implementation, and evaluation and feedback have been executed. Critical Analysis: Changes related to planning that were implemented included developing handbooks for SPs, faculty, and graduate student instructors, as well as material for students in order to better describe the program.  SPs are now referred to as “simulated” as opposed to “standardized” as part of a broader effort to clarify the purpose of SP interactions to students.  Streamlined rubrics have been piloted, including electronic rubrics for first year students.  SPs are being trained on fewer cases, in order to improve the training program.  When possible, activities now take place in one large classroom instead of many small classrooms to improve oversight.  Finally, additional feedback has been obtained from SPs via a retreat.  These changes have been well received by students, SPs, and faculty.    Next Steps: The collection of this data and initial quality improvement changes provided a basis for hiring a full-time employee who will: dedicate 50% of their time to programmatic assessment of the SP program, support faculty with logistics and training, and be the face of our program to the students and SPs. Further, formal quantitative and qualitative assessment of the SP program has begun.   Type:  Not

Evolution of Interdisciplinary Geriatric Transitions of Care on Readmission Rates

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of an interdisciplinary transitions of care (TOC) service on readmission rates in a geriatric population. STUDY DESIGN: Single-center retrospective cohort study of adults 60 years or older discharged from an academic medical center. METHODS: From July 1, 2013, to February 21, 2016, a total of 4626 patients discharged from 1 hospital, including inpatient, emergency department, observation, and short-stay units, were included. Cases were scheduled for a TOC service with the interdisciplinary team. Controls received usual care at other sites. All-cause 14-, 30-, and 90-day readmission rates between propensity score-matched study groups were evaluated by intention-to-treat (ITT), per-protocol (PP), and as-treated methods. RESULTS: During the study period, 513 patients were scheduled for at least 1 component of the TOC intervention (ITT group). Of those patients, 215 completed all scheduled visits (PP group). Readmission rate after 30 days demonstrated no difference in the ITT group compared with the control group (12.8% vs 10.7%; P = .215), although it was significantly lower in the PP group in comparison with the control group (12.8% vs 7.9%; P = .042). CONCLUSIONS: An interdisciplinary team based in a patient-centered medical home improved readmission rates for all patients who completed the intervention (PP group)

A Randomized Crossover Comparison between Team-Based Learning and Lecture Format on Long-Term Learning Outcomes

There are limited data evaluating the effectiveness of different teaching pedagogies to maintain gains in learning achieved over the short term. The purpose of this study is to compare long-term learning outcomes between two different teaching pedagogies, team-based learning (TBL) and lecture. Within a therapeutic elective course a randomized crossover study was conducted with 30 students divided into two sections. Each section was taught six therapeutic topics (three TBL and three lecture). Six months following completion of the course, 47 assessment questions (application and recall multiple-choice questions) were re-administered to 16 students from the class with no prior announcement of the assessment. The results showed no significant difference in long-term assessment scores between TBL and lecture formats (67 ± 14% vs. 63 ± 16%, p = 0.2, respectively). In addition, there was a significant (p < 0.0001) and similar decline in short-term gains for TBL (90 ± 9% vs. 67 ± 14%) and lecture (86 ± 11% vs. 63 ± 16%) in assessment scores. In conclusion, there was no advantage gained by employing an active-learning pedagogy when assessing multiple-choice questions six months following end of a therapeutics course in a limited sample size. Neither pedagogy was able to maintain short-term gains in learning outcomes as assessed by multiple-choice questions